many moons ago and many miles away, a leftie friend of mine accused me of being a conservative.

She thought she'd landed a devastating blow, one that would make me question the very foundations of my thinking, lay me bare and in pieces so that what was picked up afterward could be molded into a proper, liberal, mindset.

I think she might have been genuinely surprised when I said, "Yes...and?"

Ever since then, and especially so now, I've come to the conclusion that many liberals really are sheltered creatures, unable to understand that their opinions are not synonymous with absolute truth, but merely one among many sets of opinions. Each of which has its ups and its downs if put into practice.

I can even understand how they might maintain that opinion in the face of contrary evidence: they train themselves to dismiss evidence as propaganda and counterarguments as somebody else's astroturf. Oh, I accuse people all the time of parrotting talking points, of course. But that's not the only thing I do. Every once in a while, mostly when I'm procrastinating on household chores or somesuch, I'll bang out a whole spiel.

I hardly ever see that with committed leftists. They accuse, they insult, they assert, they all but put their fingers in their ears and chant, but they don't try to make a convincing argument. I really think they've let that ability atrophy. It's not necessarily their fault, of course. If they're young and never been taught to make convincing intellectual arguments, I don't expect them to will themselves to do it from nothing. Intellectual rigor isn't hard-wired; it's a learned behavior and it's always an act of will, even among professional practitioners. You are the easiest person for yourself to fool, after all.

So yeah: Baker's a Republican. That's an objective fact, not an insult.

In a sound byte: he's too open-borders for Republicans, and not open-border enough for Democrats.

In a paragraph: while he's more or less competent, the presidency isn't just about being a good manager. There's a large amount of bully-pulpit advocacy that we expect from the man at the top. Kennedy and FDR and Reagan and Obama were praised for their advocacy as much as their successes in governing, and in the case of all four it excused some of their less graceful moments in office. Governors can do that too, and provided they don't fall on their face in running state government, that can be and often is forgiven by people who care about the roads being in good repair more than they care about politics. Baker has chosen not to advocate for principles. That's respectable in a governor. But it leaves him a blank slate on the national stage. He'll be tarred as a girlie-man-Massachusetts-liberal by the tea party wing of the GOP and he'll be tarred as an uncaring 1 percenter by the left wing of the Dems. And all he'll have to defend himself with is the unsexy stuff. If Baker wants a crack at the White House, he'd do well to run for Congress or the Senate after his time on Beacon Hill wraps up. Senators and representatives have more leeway to be unabashed advocates.

Charlie Baker, the current governor of Massachusetts, is a classic example of the RINO. He openly and proudly supports the Bathroom Bill (a Mass. ballot question that will allow any person of any sex or "gender identity" to use any public bathroom he chooses); refuses to come out strongly against sanctuary cities; and will not champion the rollback of Massachusetts's onerous state sales tax, which was raised by preceding Democratic Governor Deval Patrick from 5% to 6.25% – an astonishing 25% increase. In fact, Baker's overall policy approach and his stances on traditional Republican-conservative issues are so left-leaning that he has earned the derisive sobriquet of "Tall Deval" – a reference to his 6-ft., 5-in. height and his liberal governing philosophy. That his approval rating is so high in heavily Democratic Massachusetts that he is called "The Most Popular Governor in the Country" says it all. He is, indeed, the prototypical RINO.

He's an example of what the Republican party was when those old farts around here were young. People who actually cared about governance, not destruction of such "difficult" US institutions like, oh, the constitution, rule of law, science and data, etc.

In other words, they were patriotic, not destructive greedy trolls with a veneer of flag and bible waved about like their privates.

Something like half the Democratic members of congress and nearly all of the Democrat-aligned media spent the last half of September and the first week of October haranguing us to abandon silly notions like burden of proof and presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence of guilt.

But don't let that fool you!

While it looks like the lefties are more than willing to kangaroo court their way back to power, that is a but a clever ruse! Perpetrated by none other than the Vast RightWing Conspiracy!

Someone who speaks French better than I do could probably set that to the tune of the Marseillaise and end up with a ribbiting piece of music. Throw a rabbit and cricket in there and you've covered your bases with just about all of the hopping critters.

"Back in high school many moons ago and many miles away, a leftie friend of mine accused me of being a conservative."

According to a recent Supreme Court Justice vetting process, we apparently can't go back to high school to bring up real/perceived events so this is already going off track, but, please, go on...

"She thought she'd landed a devastating blow, one that would make me question the very foundations of my thinking, lay me bare and in pieces so that what was picked up afterward could be molded into a proper, liberal, mindset."

I mean, this is purely subjective without knowing at all what she said. Looking back to the Biden/Ryan Vice Presidential debate, it's commonly understood that Biden mopped the floor with Ryan with facts and experience, but according to conservative outlets, Ryan somehow "won the debate" because he rambled on and on. Personally, I think this is how many Conservatives think debates are "won"--just keep talking until the other side walks away out of boredom and then claim victory.

"...they train themselves to dismiss evidence as propaganda and counterarguments as somebody else's astroturf... They accuse, they insult, they assert, they all but put their fingers in their ears and chant, but they don't try to make a convincing argument. I really think they've let that ability atrophy... Intellectual rigor isn't hard-wired; it's a learned behavior and it's always an act of will, even among professional practitioners..."

I combined all that because you used two paragraphs to basically say the same thing:
A) You think (somehow) lefties/liberals are more closed-minded than conservatives--despite by very definition it being far and wide the opposite.
B) Somehow your "intellectual rigor" allows you to carry such a superior attitude.

As I told a don't-call-me-a-conservative! libertarian friend of mine recently, if you want to make a strong argument about why you shouldn't be labeled conservative you *just might* want to make more of a case about why your debating skills are fair and open-minded and spend less time simply bashing the other side as not up to your (perceived) intellectual ability. But I guess that's the typical Dan "Don't-call-me-a-conservative!" Rea school of thought amongst local conservatives... but don't call them that!

No in that it's a cheap shot that ignores the implication of what I wrote after my high school anecdote.

I'll have a serious conversation with anyone if...and it's a big if these days...they promise to argue against my ideas, not just throw around insults like rethuglicans, republikkkan, and my own personal favorite: white male. Some people I know well personally will occasionally be willing to do that. Randos on the internet and many "mainstream" media personalities and Democrat politicians don't strike me as the type who would.

A single party dominating a political system leads to corruption. The lack of accountability degrades democracy and responsible government. Just look at any country where a single party has dominated government.

That one supports the dominant party is another issue. The "other party" in a two (or more) party system, if the system is truly democratic, changes its message to appeal to voters. The opposition seizes more and more on the discontent of the voters until they become the governing party. The dominant party feels the threat of losing power, so they change their ways to win voters back. That's how democracy works.

Charlie Baker has been among the only recipients of anything good to come out of this clown president. Compared to Trump, Baker looks like a 60s activist. It shields Baker from the reality that he's a tall guy with a nice smile who hasn't really done anything substantive as governor.

Well, give Baker credit, he has done some things. He cancelled late night T service, shrunk the service dates for the cape cod train, delayed by years the green line extension, delayed by decades the commuter rail station in Allston, cancelled the DMU train plans, increased subway fares (while keeping tolls and gas tax the same and promising to raise fares again, relaxed environmental regulations, taxed solar panel homeowners, and given $100 million+ to beg failing GE to move into one of the hottest real estate markets (Seaport) in the country. Oh, and he's tall and after lots of polling will give you a last minute position on something.